Commando,
A depth mike will work even for Remington caps if you hold it "up" in the orientation you show. If you back light the tool with the cap you will see when a gap appears between the last point of contact with the cap skirt and the micrometer base. It would be very tedious, but it would work.
In a few cases the differences in the contact points from side to side are slight but a lot of them have this kind of difference.
![](http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Caps/Rem10d.jpg)
As you can see from that shot the petal on the right side of that cap is much lower than the other three petals. You can see the differences on the other caps above too.
I've thought about the irregularities of the Remington skirt length and what would be the best way to determine where they grip on the cone. I finally decided the longest length would be the best because they seat on the face of the cone which perhaps orients them with the longest petal extending the furthest down the cone. I guess arguments could be made for averaging all four petals or even the two longest, but I've chosen the first contact point that provides "gripping" force.
When measuring I.D.s I am particularly interested in the diameter at the mouth, I really don't care what it is deeper in. The tapered shape of the cone doesn't contact the cap interior beyond where it is gripping the cone. The diameter at the mouth is normally the tightest fit on the cone, but as the cap is pushed down the copper cup deforms and you get contact until the cone taper becomes smaller than the interior diameter. One last thing to consider is whether the caps have any taper, unless the taper is greater than the taper of the cone then it really doesn't matter either. Looking at the illustrations, your own tubes, pictures of tubes I have shown on other threads in the past and the pictures of the caps I have shown you can see the taper of caps is insignificant relative to the taper on the cones.
Like this:
![](http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Caps/10CapsonCones.png)
The cone dimensions in that illustration above are this (taken with that Optical comparator you like so much
![Smiley :)](https://www.cascity.com/forumhall/Smileys/cowboys/smiley.gif)
)
One of the reasons the Ø.1683 dimension provided by CCI make absolutely no sense is this:![](http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/Mako_CAS/Caps/TresoTube.png)
That of course also applies to the Ø.170 dimension reported that is even greater than the ones attributed to CCI.
Looking at the dimensions on the Treso, the Ø.113 dimension fits the CCI #11 caps (that is if you believe 120 measurements from the chart way back in the thread). If you put a cap with the Ø.1683 I.D. on a Treso tube (Treso tubes are designed for #11 caps) they would just fall off. In fact CCI #11caps if they were at the reported dimensions wouldn't fit any of the tubes whether Italian factory or aftermarket. I have measured both Uberti and Pietta tubes, and with an optical comparator. With an external feature like the profile of a cone it is extremely easy to get very accurate dimensions using an Optical Comparator.
~Mako